The nice part about these little quizzes is I get to ask you back.
Are you a reactionary isolationist? Based on what you said about being galled by nearly any intervention you must be. That means....that you opposed the interventions in Germany in World War Two (Including Lend/Lease), Afghanistan, Kuwait and Grenada. If not, your position is totally inconsistent and properly dismissed as a mere debating tactic. Then again, if you are a consistent reactionary isolationist, I salute your willingness to follow through on your convictions come hell or high water.
:o)
More seriously, I am not a "non-interventionist" (a more neutral term that your strange and innacurate "reactionary isolationist" slur). I describe the policy I support as national defenseism. I would have supported Lend Lease (a trade which helped our national defense) and certainly would have supported the war once the Japanese forced our hand. I *supported* the Afghan war because it was a responde to a *direct attack* and said so several times on Free Republic. Intervention is justified but only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S.
I do admire your consistency....but where in the heck do you intend to get all the necessary troops to launch these invasionns and pay for the subsequent nation building. Do you also suggest we send 100K troops each to Syria, Iran, Libya, Zimbabwee, etc. not to mention 83 billion dollars to reconstruct these countries? Your only hope it would seem to carry out your ambitious Wilsonian ambition would be to raise taxes and impose conscription Otherwise, how do you intend to accomplish these miracles?